From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0DC590E for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:41:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q92so14126773ioi.1 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 02:41:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=semihalf-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SW9ziPM71yj/FAqvZltGWjRFjM9ZzrNl6k61/DuUK18=; b=QYPBptt8HdH01ZS8glc07lK0yk4VFCc4Jp14Tz4ppW4BsXP6G0Go8I1BQiTsYF9xGq 2t4m+t/YJN9igQsq/mVKwRO/oHfFdeXqv3TaD0GPt7xdPsXy2iX43RKhLX1+lBG4WO0Z DVMZm5X9Rjm/r9QmH8ZYgn3MwcKPTvrWh4OZ91/oiuwa5lJwgMRgCAhPoaE3D/l/Znw1 NlV1Ajv3+Q6koAKX1R+dWwOq/rm0npmMg8ey6LWzNFqnZruAyikUUfWrtNA6KI6JY/ev VGgM9xDgk1bLc1PMNaYFSXgOKmNCm2q4Er66zl+EdRM+nkKR0mSq35LJR6peDrRgqlCa eUaQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SW9ziPM71yj/FAqvZltGWjRFjM9ZzrNl6k61/DuUK18=; b=WqPzOBrlYbx4Xi/+CcVhoRcBMKHQurmNztJUbc3PNySU3eO2i1MgJ4Fq4+jvqYqJBR hSb5D1wk/8gvHCGCq173cp3+cW16amkM90zD6ljtF2ePxtxTGUDJKY8E3NM3MoChnXdW TcmCKQjiuAGlak1m9C13bSO7FVAy0N+oOyslmVlk7H6yH9w2zBzjk2dtRn88go8VxCXn Mpli/V0xOUjYpk6WuJv/sWHc5sHhjSUo5/DQPoYSvXN2hYLA/iZDaM+FCU21UtHl/mF1 J+RJzcdKAMESGSPNq3It6lTxKo+/3ibgOtXPsCQvaqiEjOU32zr37gFJLFaOu1mpRQFT 4U2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwPZvvEeGOQz3bdB4EeGJHJPfr8HdMNYcL49kL9sQufhD11r01GzCCAXzEtsbKTpgP+ax1rlP+5Sj63SMg== X-Received: by 10.107.47.85 with SMTP id j82mr39442367ioo.191.1474364493869; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 02:41:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.13.135 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 02:41:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <365e4837.62d.157448762d2.Coremail.zhangwqh@126.com> References: <365e4837.62d.157448762d2.Coremail.zhangwqh@126.com> From: Andriy Berestovskyy Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:41:13 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?5byg5Lyf?= Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Matthew Hall , nikita@gandi.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] lpm performance X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:41:34 -0000 Hey, You are correct. The LPM might need just one (TBL24) or two memory reads (TBL24 + TBL8). The performance also drops once you have a variety of destination addresses instead of just one (cache misses). In your case for the dst IP 192.168.1.2 you will have two memory reads (TBL24 + TBL8), because 192.168.1/24 block has the more specific route 192.168.1.1/32. Regards, Andriy On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:18 AM, =E5=BC=A0=E4=BC=9F wro= te: > Hi all, > > > Does anyone test IPv4 performance? If so, what's the throughput? I can ge= t almost 10Gb with 64 byte packets. But before the test, I would expect it= will be less than 10G. I thought the performance will not be affected by = the number of rule entires. But the throughput will be related to whether = the flow needs to check the second layer table : TBL8. Is my understanding= correct? I added this flow entries following this link: > http://www.slideshare.net/garyachy/understanding-ddpd-algorithmics > slide 10, > > > > struct ipv4_lpm_route ipv4_lpm_route_array[] =3D { > > {IPv4(192, 168, 0, 0), 16, 0}, > > {IPv4(192, 168, 1, 0), 24, 1}, > > {IPv4(192, 168, 1, 1), 32, 2} > > }; > > send the flow with dst IP: > > 192.168.1.2 > > It should check the second layer table. But the performance is still 10G.= Does any part go wrong with my setup? Or it really can achieve 10G with 6= 4 byte packet size. > > Thanks, > > --=20 Andriy Berestovskyy